The Instigator
meashka
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
8803
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

is animal testing ethical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 23178
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

meashka

Con

Should scientist be able to test on animals before they test on humans?
8803

Pro

I. The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many Medical Treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact, there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support Animal Testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.

II. Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing Trials On Humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved – not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life.

III. Biomedical research is a difficult process, to say the least. The human body is the most complex machine yet encountered, consisting of trillions of cells, each containing billions of molecules, many of which are composed of tens of thousands of atoms. These molecular machines perform their designated tasks with incredible precision, working within a stunningly interdependent environment, from the level of molecules communicating with each other over minute distances right up to entire organ systems interacting with one another. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools – cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models – these are all powerful techniques in humanity's arsenal in the war against disease and ignorance, but none of them fully replicates the intricacy of a living organism.

IV. Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists' efforts would be massively hampered, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental research which underpins all biomedical knowledge. For example, it was Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley's work on the nerves of squid that elucidated the basis of nervous transmission; and it was John C Eccles' work on cats' spinal cords that first incontrovertibly demonstrated the nature of the synapse, earning him a share of the 1963 Nobel in Physiology, along with Hodgkin and Huxley. Without their work on animals, we would know far less about the workings of our own nervous systems and how to treat them.
Debate Round No. 1
meashka

Con

1. human and animal testing doesn't agree 100% of the time, in fact according to huntingdon life sciences only 5-25% of the time it agrees. based on this information the scientist that test the animals wind up killing thousands of animals, when only 240 of the released medications out of the 200,000 that there are labeled essential by testing it on the animals first. but if you think about it, it took them 199,760 tries to find 240 medications since animal testing has started. less than 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever found in animals
2. the scientist are not just testing the drugs on animals to make sure the humans will be safe, they are testing 94% on cosmetics and other house hold cleaning products leaving only 6% for medical research, therefore... testing on animals is not ethical if only 6% is being used for medical research.
3. if we are the most complex machine yet, how does it justify testing on less complex organisms. how will the biomedical researchers know what to look for if each system in animals are all different in humans. for example: thalidomide was tested on animals and was said to be okay, but caused birth defects on the humans.
4. Your examples are a little speck compared to all the failures and deaths of animals caused by these people. animal testing can be replaced by AT LEAST!!! 450 methods known at this time, therefore there are more failures and deaths in animal testing than there are cures and happy endings to this day since past history.
8803

Pro

me re emphasize this Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing Trials On Humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved – not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life.

Biomedical research is a difficult process, to say the least. The human body is the most complex machine yet encountered, consisting of trillions of cells, each containing billions of molecules, many of which are composed of tens of thousands of atoms. These molecular machines perform their designated tasks with incredible precision, working within a stunningly interdependent environment, from the level of molecules communicating with each other over minute distances right up to entire organ systems interacting with one another. Biomedical researchers need tools capable of mimicking this level of complexity. The past century or so has seen an explosion in the availability of investigative tools – cell cultures, non-invasive imaging, computer models – these are all powerful techniques in humanity's arsenal in the war against disease and ignorance, but none of them fully replicates the intricacy of a living organism.
Debate Round No. 2
meashka

Con

meashka forfeited this round.
8803

Pro

8803 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.